It's depressing being a liberal Democrat

[newbie]

Coulter and Limbaugh are professionally angry. Not sure why you lumped O'Reilly in with the other two.

They are as Republican as you can get. You don't count media then? Too bad. I was going to throw Bob Novak into the mix. Are you saying O'Reilly isn't frothing from the right? Oh, and I guess you don't count hitman Pat Robertson then either. How about George Allen or Karl Rove? And then there's that self-righteous Mormon Orrin Hatch and scandal laden Tom Delay. And of course, the grand daddy of em all, good ole Dubya his self. There's so many they even have a group: http://groups.msn.com/AngryRepublicans

O'Reilly is as Republican as you can get? Get real! He's pro-gun control, pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, and supports gays adopting. I'll admit that overall he leans to the right, but he is hardly "as Republican as you can get."

Pat Robertson is on the fringes of the Republican Party and does not speak for the GOP (although he was right about Hugo Chavez). Btw, do you want me to bring up all the hatemongers on the left? In my previous post I just issued a short list of the angry representatives of the Democrat Party.

George Allen has a 50/50 chance of getting the GOP nomination for the 2008 election. He is a fine conservative and is one of a small number of politicians with low negatives.

Karl Rove rules! The Evil Dark Lord™ has the left totally psyched out.

Tom DeLay has been convicted of nothing.

Orrin Hatch. He's religious! Ergo, self-righteous!...unlike us progressive liberals.

Dubya: Liberated over 50 million people from 2 murderous regimes in 2 wildly successful liberations, author of the Bush Doctrine, a steely resolve in the War on Terror, and a man who will be treated kindly by history as the ME slowly changes in the future.

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists? Zero.

"They" refer to Coulter and Limbaugh. Where did I say Robertson speaks for the GOP. I mention him as he's an angry Republican (and a major hypocrite, you know, love your enemies and all that stuff.)

Rove, the CIA leaker. Yeah, he's credible.

Delay, well you got me there - however this list of indictments can't be a picnic:

http://www.trmpac.org

Hatch - just another angry Republican

Dubya - responsible for:

- between 33000 and 37000 civilian deaths in Iraq,

- close to 2300 U.S. soldiers deaths

- 16,700 wounded U.S. soldiers

- numerous skeletons http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

- this quote when asked by Bob Woodward about his legacy: "Who cares. We'll all be dead."

[Montgomery Burns]

Newbie:

"They" refer to Coulter and Limbaugh.

I repeat: They are professionally "angry." They are pundits.

Where did I say Robertson speaks for the GOP.

You said he was as Republican as you can get.

I mention him as he's an angry Republican (and a major hypocrite, you know, love your enemies and all that stuff.)

"Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites." -- your friend Ann Coulter

Rove, the CIA leaker. Yeah, he's credible.

Not only has Rove not been convicted, he hasn't even been charged with anything. You still upset that you got a lump of coal for Fitzmas?

Delay, well you got me there - however this list of indictments can't be a picnic:

http://www.trmpac.org

He also just got the GOP nomination in Texas a few days ago.

Hatch - just another angry Republican

"The Democratic leadership (not you rank-and-file members) are drowning in hatred. It's made them totally irrational, to the point where they can't refrain from attacking George W. Bush even when they know doing so will hurt them more than it does him. If they didn't hate Richard Nixon too, they'd do well to take heed of his farewell words: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself." Bush doesn't hate guys like hate-filled Bob Byrd of the KKK. That's the whole idea behind his "new tone." Two things are going on with the Democrats and this latest attack on Bush over his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Number One: Attacking Bush is the natural instinct of the reactionary Democrats and liberals, because they can't go on living if they're out of power much longer. Everything - duty, honor, country - is second to getting their power back.

Number Two: There is a seething rage and hatred for Bush. This hate fuels their attacks, and every single George W. Bush success stokes that fiery hate - which in turn leads to ever more brutal (and politically foolish) salvos. For example, every single thing these people said about Iraq turned out to be bupkis. Not one of the so-called peace movement's nightmare scenarios came true. Now they see this great carrier landing, and they flip out! If we'd lost, you know damn well they'd be all over Bush for that, but they just can't abide any reminder that this man they called an idiot won two wars against foes they called unbeatable in 18 months. These überleftists, those of you marching in the anti-Bush peace marches who can't get over this false talking point that Bush is "illegitimate" after 2000, have been infected with this hatred." -- Rush Limbaugh telling it like it is.

Dubya - responsible for:

- between 33000 and 37000 civilian deaths in Iraq,

Wtf? Your blaming Bush for terrorists killing civilians too?

Sadly, civilian casualties are a part of war. However Bush has a ways to go to catch up to the million or so civilians Saddam was responsible for killing.

Besides, one can make an excellent argument that Iraq Body Count's numbers are inflated. Last year Iraq Body Count published an analysis of 2 years of Iraqi casualties from 2003 to 2005. The study reported 24,865 civilian deaths in the first 2 years of the war, an apparent endorsement of the "US indiscrimanently killing Iraqi civilians" claim. But some curious statistics jump out at you:

Over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). A stray smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare, etc--all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole. It's particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the US coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this Iraq Body Count study.

- close to 2300 U.S. soldiers deaths

- 16,700 wounded U.S. soldiers

God bless those brave volunteers.

- numerous skeletons http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

Here's some skeletons for you to look at.

this quote when asked by Bob Woodward about his legacy: "Who cares. We'll all be dead."

If Woodward doesn't care about the future of his children and grandchildren, that's his perogative.

[newbie]

I guess it's hard for you to face facts Monty. Check out what the American people think of their great leader.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...lnews-headlines

And some even talk of impeachment:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/13705324.htm

Finally the Americans are waking up to the blunders, lies and scandals of the Bush administration.

[Montgomery Burns]

Why do many automatically assume that Republicans are rich and Democrats aren't? During the 2004 US election, 24 of the top 25 political donations went to the Democrat Party. I specifically remember seeing this but I can't remember where...but I think it was at Opensecrets.org.

George Soros is a billionaire who had vowed to do everything he could to defeat the Republicans. The Dems are known as the party of lawyers; they aren't exactly candidates for the poor house. And what about the multi-millions spent by the labor unions to support the Dems?

I contend that the "rich Republicans/poor Democrats" meme is untrue.

[geoffrey]

Same thing in Canada, where everyone thinks all the big money goes to the CPC. In fact, the Liberals and NDP have bigger donations from fewer people. The CPC draws a little bit from alot of people.

I'd suspect the same in the US on the left/right type donations.